Party unity 85%, in the bottom tenth of the Delaware House (average 94.5%). 658 roll calls in the DE 2025–26 session.
Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Dukes voted with the majority of Delaware House Republicans; it is ranked within the Delaware House. The count covers every roll call where Dukes voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against the Delaware House. 72% of Dukes’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Delaware, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans. Dukes sits at +0.15 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 82% of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Dukes sits furthest from the middle of the Delaware House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
Delaware House average 94.5% · ranks 38th of 41 · 21 votes against the majority of Delaware House Republicans
From Delaware, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2036th of 2,335 State House Republicans
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 82% of State House Republicans · ± 0.04
Attendance
Delaware House average 94.5% · ranks 31st of 41 · 658 roll calls
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 1803rd of 2,521
Out of committee
Delaware House average 80% · ranks 13th of 40
Peer group: Delaware House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Dukes, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Dukes is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Dukes says
Dukes talks about policy less than 98% of State House Republicans. Policy discussion in 0% of 2 statements, against 32% for the average State House Republican; 780th of 792.
An AI model reads each of Dukes’s 2 statements in the DE 2025–26 session (2 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the DE 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Row | Dukes | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 9% |
| Policy discussion | 0% | 32% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 13% |
statements classified
2 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 2 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Dukes; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Dukes does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Dukes used no extreme labels in 2 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the DE 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the DE 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 22 months are hatched here; 20 of them have no statements.
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 2 statements
Newest first, the DE 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 2 posts on X.
Policy
No policy statements for the DE 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Dukes sits at +0.15 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 82% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.11 to +0.19, which understates the uncertainty; from 40 donors and 480 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.11 to +0.19. From 40 donors and 480 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Dukes, coloured by its side of 0 (blue left, red right, deeper further out); the bar through it is the approximate range (±1.96 standard errors), which understates the uncertainty; the grey ticks below are the medians of Dukes’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
What this means, and what it doesn’t
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Where Dukes sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Dukes |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 18% |
| Delaware House | 41 | −0.6 | 76% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 55% |
How to read the strips
Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Dukes in every row; the rule is each group’s median. The table under the figure gives the share of each group to the left of Dukes.
Money
Dukes reported $13.1K in the 2026 cycle, 39% of the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 72% of itemized individual money came from Delaware.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 28 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)53 squares$6,900
- PACs and other committees47 squares$6,200
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $6,900 | 52.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $6,200 | 47.3% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $10.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $8,850 |
| 2024 cycle | $4,000 |
| 2026 cycle | $13.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 72% came from Delaware.
- Delaware$4,950
- Pennsylvania$1,550
- Maryland$350
- New Jersey$50
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Delaware | $4,950 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,550 |
| Maryland | $350 |
| New Jersey | $50 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Delaware
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Delaware. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- DELAWARE REALTORS PAC$1,200
- NIKKI MILLER FOR DELAWARE$1,200
- AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LIFE INSURER NON-FEDERAL PAC$1,000
- DELAWARE HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DHAPAC)$950
- DELAWARE FOUNDATION FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION$900
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Dukes voted with the majority of Delaware House Republicans on 85% of party-line votes and missed 8.4% of 658 roll calls. Delaware House on average: 94.5% party unity, 94.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, Dukes voted against the majority of Delaware House Republicans 21 times.
658 roll calls Dukes could vote on in the DE 2025–26 session, compared with Delaware House. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Dukes voted with the majority of Delaware House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Delaware House Republicans
Party unity 85%, Delaware House average 94.5%, ranks 38th of 41. 658 roll calls in the DE 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Dukes, the thin grey bar the Delaware House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Dukes | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 91.6% | 94.5% |
| Party unity | 85% | 94.5% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the DE 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 14–0Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 1, 2026 | HB 445 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 26 AND TITLE 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO LARGE ENERGY USE FACILITIES. Passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 26–0 · R 0–8Democrats 26 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 8 nay | became law |
| Jul 1, 2026 | SB 347 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 6 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE MEDICAL DEBT PROTECTION ACT Passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 27–0 · R 13–0Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jul 1, 2026 | SB 1 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 16, TITLE 18, TITLE 29, AND TITLE 31 OF THE DELAWARE CODE, AND CHAPTER 237, VOLUME 83 OF THE LAWS OF DELAWARE, RELATING TO PRIMARY CARE SERVICES. Passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 14–0Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jul 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 14–0Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 0 nay | became law |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Dukes most often
- Danny ShortR548 shared votes97%
- Kevin HensleyR455 shared votes96%
- Jeff SpiegelmanR572 shared votes96%
- Shannon MorrisR518 shared votes96%
- Valerie GiltnerR582 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Dukes least often
- Sean LynnD547 shared votes85%
- Jeff HilovskyR582 shared votes85%
- Eric MorrisonD589 shared votes85%
- Sophie PhillipsD550 shared votes85%
- Larry LambertD602 shared votes86%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
DE 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Dukes sponsored 43 bills in the DE 2025–26 session; 12 became law. Cosponsored 97 others. 88% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Delaware House average 80%; 13th of 40).
The bills Dukes sponsored and cosponsored in the DE 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the DE 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 43 | 42 | 38 | 29 | 12 |
| Cosponsored | 97 | 97 | 82 | 80 | 17 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Dukes sponsored, ochre blocks bills Dukes cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Delaware House average 80%. Ranks 13th of 40.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Dukes, by number of shared bills in the DE 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Brian Pettyjohn79
- Gerald Hocker69
- Dave Wilson67
- Dave Sokola65
- Lyndon Yearick52
What this means, and what it doesn’t
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Dukes’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HCR 152 | HONORING THE YOUNG WOMEN FROM ACROSS THE STATE OF DELAWARE PARTICIPATING IN THE 2026 SESSION OF DELAWARE GIRLS STATE. | Sponsor | Jun 25, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Passed By Senate. Votes: 21 YES Jun 25, 2026 |
| HR 27 | RECOGNIZING JUNE 24, 2026, AS "STAFF APPRECIATION DAY" IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. | Sponsor | Jun 24, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Passed In House by Voice Vote Jun 24, 2026 |
| SCR 223 | REQUESTING THE DELAWARE INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO GRANT QUALIFIED MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS AND SCHOOL BASED PROGRAMS ACCESS TO BROADCAST DIAA-SANCTIONED PLAYOFF AND CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES. | Sponsor | Jun 24, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Education(model) | Passed In House by Voice Vote Jul 1, 2026 |
| SB 284 | AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO PROTECTING FIRST RESPONDERS. | Sponsor | Jun 18, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Reported Out of Committee (Administration) in House with 1 Favorable, 4 On Its Merits Jun 24, 2026 |
| SCR 219 | RECOGNIZING JUNE 19, 2026, AS "JUNETEENTH NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE DAY" IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE. | Cosponsor | Jun 18, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Passed In House by Voice Vote Jun 18, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Dukes’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Dukes’s official and campaign websites (weekly for Congress, monthly for the states) and keeps every page’s text, so changes can be read later; it also records social accounts and describes the images Dukes posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
housegop.delaware.gov/members/house-district-40/https://legis.delaware.gov/AssemblyMember/150/DukesLast crawled never
0pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Dukes posted
No images from Dukes’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
116 turns, Mar 25, 2021 to Jun 30, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Dukes is most unusual among Delaware House, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 101c752d-fbe4-471c-ae50-f2b1409a328f
- Open States
- ocd-person/101c752d-fbe4-471c-ae50-f2b1409a328f
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
Freshness of this profile’s data
- What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
- Roll calls (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; aggregates only.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
How the measures work
- What politicians say
- Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
- Extreme labels
- A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
- Policy areas and agreement
- Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
- Ideology (CSIP)
- Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
- Campaign money
- Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
- Votes and key votes
- Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
- Peers and ranks
- Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab